Ofsted will need additional funding to allow it to monitor the “cowboys”, “sharks” and “bottom feeders” it expects to be attracted by the reformed apprenticeship programme, its chief inspector has warned.
Addressing the Commons Education Select Committee this morning, Amanda Spielman said that the explosion in providers triggered by the introduction of the apprenticeship levy meant that the inspectorate would need extra cash to allow it to adequately monitor provision.
She added that she wanted to ensure the additional funding made available through the levy did not result in “another Train to Gain”. The programme created by the previous Labour government ran from 2006 to 2010. A 2009 report by the National Audit Office concluded that it had “not provided good value for money”, and more than half of the funding ended up being spent on training that would have occurred without it.
“We also know that whenever a giant tap of money turns on,” Ms Spielman told MPs, “you get some really good people doing good things. But you also get some cowboys, some sharks, some bottom-feeders. We saw that with Train to Gain, and we don’t want the apprenticeship policy becoming another Train to Gain.
“For me, it’s very important that we can look at the providers coming on stream and that we have the resource to do that. If the apprenticeship policy is successful then the current level of resource won’t be sufficient and I’ve already had some conversations with the Department for Education about this… There will need to be additional resource [for Ofsted] to be able to do the job properly.”
‘A huge flaw’
Committee chair Robert Halfon, a former skills minister, also raised concerns about subcontracting, raising the issue that Ofsted does not routinely inspect all subcontractors. “That’s a huge flaw because it means they could be providing rubbish training,” he said.
Ms Spielman said the Ofsted currently inspects subcontractors “on a sample basis through lead contractors”.
She also told MPs that she believed colleges currently have “the biggest funding challenges” compared to schools, as well as “an enormous amount of work” keeping on top of policy changes such as the development of T levels.
She told the committee: “I can say that we see quite disappointing outcomes at inspection for FE compared with pre-16. We’ve seen deterioration at a time when school outcomes have been stable or increasing slightly.”
The chief inspector also raised concerns about the quality of provision in some colleges. She said: “We see some who do it very well and some who find it much harder. We see, particularly at level 3… some good work. We see more that we’re concerned about at level 2 and it’s so important [raising the participation age] doesn’t become just an exercise in keeping 16- and 17-year-olds occupied for a year in programmes that won’t actually add anything to their lives.”
Want to keep up with the latest education news and opinion? Follow Tes FE News on Twitter, like us on Facebook and follow us on LinkedIn.
